Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ADMk2]

Can I confirm something here...

The 24 MH-60R's will cost roughly the same price as the 2 x Canberra class LHD's?

Give or take $230m...

The Canberra Class project (including LCM-1E's etc) is funded at roughly $3b:

JP2048PH4AB LHD | Defence Materiel Organisation

and the MH-60R at $3.23b:

AIR 9000 Phase 8 | Defence Materiel Organisation

You pay a hefty fee for local builds apparently...

 

[old faithful]

An F35B buy to bring the total to 100, as planned would have multiple benefits for the ADF.
Flexibility in operating off the LHD, s as well as being able to operate off small domestic airfields or even stretches of roads is exactley what the RAAF needs imo.
I can see it happening, operating from the LHD, s I mean, great vision from Abbott.lol.

 

[Volkodav]

Give or take $230m...

The Canberra Class project (including LCM-1E's etc) is funded at roughly $3b:

JP2048PH4AB LHD | Defence Materiel Organisation

and the MH-60R at $3.23b:

AIR 9000 Phase 8 | Defence Materiel Organisation

You pay a hefty fee for local builds apparently...

Ok I'm confused, local build? You referring to the LHDs or Romeos? Or is it a tongue in cheek shot at two overseas ( or mostly overseas) builds?

It reminds me of something I read years ago that it would have been cheaper to have built a helicopter carrier or two to get the RANs Seahawks back to sea than to buy the Seahawks. The only issue with that though, is what would have flown off the FFGs then.

 

[ADMk2]

Ok I'm confused, local build? You referring to the LHDs or Romeos? Or is it a tongue in cheek shot at two overseas ( or mostly overseas) builds?

It reminds me of something I read years ago that it would have been cheaper to have built a helicopter carrier or two to get the RANs Seahawks back to sea than to buy the Seahawks. The only issue with that though, is what would have flown off the FFGs then.

Sorry, slip of the tongue. Local fit outs then...

The LHD's obviously.

 

[SASWanabe]

It reminds me of something I read years ago that it would have been cheaper to have built a helicopter carrier or two to get the RANs Seahawks back to sea than to buy the Seahawks. The only issue with that though, is what would have flown off the FFGs then.

I assume you meant Seakings?

Btw folks pretty soon we're going to be into the double digits as to how many times we have had this discussion vis-a-vis the LHDs as carriers.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm watching this argument go around and around and wondering why Defence shouldn't be considering secondary roles as well as primary ones against whatever CONOPS the forces will be expected to fulfill.

I'm loathe to add to this in detail as I'm pretty sure that it would be trading into sensitive space, so I will speak in broad but very relevant terms

all militaries have a drawer full of combat scenarios - its the things that are rolled out for the boss at 0400 to get him/her out of bed to be presented with "the klingons have invaded fiji/new zealand/taiwan/japan/christmas island these are our options.....

deploy in isolation/part of a coalition/part of a regional response etc

these are the assets we need to execute to deter/recover/retrieve/kill the opposing force

now when you buy combat/weaponised platforms the assessment for that platform includes assessing against likely scenarios as well as the CONOPs

if the ability to execute more effectively warrants consideration for other platforms or additional capability then the scope and request to do that is offered up by the user community and especially the capability owner - on a large capability shift that would mean more than just in service support.

I haven't seen anything that even remotely goes close to whats required to achieve that end state apart from some nebulous "see whats required" which will be not much different from the previous "see whats required" as opposed to "make it so"

said it before, say it again. not wanting to rain on the parade but as beneficial as it could be, I do not see enough scenarios in place for any service to make a case for a major shift in acquisition and where something else will get sacrificed to achieve it (money is not there for additional capabiliy - and this is more than just 12 x jumpers, there's a whole lot of other stuff thats in the through life costs, training, force protection etc.....

dixie is being whistled somewhere.....

 

[Volkodav]

I assume you meant Seakings?

Btw folks pretty soon we're going to be into the double digits as to how many times we have had this discussion vis-a-vis the LHDs as carriers.

Yes Sea Kings thanks for that.

 

[Volkodav]

I'm loathe to add to this in detail as I'm pretty sure that it would be trading into sensitive space, so I will speak in broad but very relevant terms

all militaries have a drawer full of combat scenarios - its the things that are rolled out for the boss at 0400 to get him/her out of bed to be presented with "the klingons have invaded fiji/new zealand/taiwan/japan/christmas island these are our options.....

deploy in isolation/part of a coalition/part of a regional response etc

these are the assets we need to execute to deter/recover/retrieve/kill the opposing force

now when you buy combat/weaponised platforms the assessment for that platform includes assessing against likely scenarios as well as the CONOPs

if the ability to execute more effectively warrants consideration for other platforms or additional capability then the scope and request to do that is offered up by the user community and especially the capability owner - on a large capability shift that would mean more than just in service support.

I haven't seen anything that even remotely goes close to whats required to achieve that end state apart from some nebulous "see whats required" which will be not much different from the previous "see whats required" as opposed to "make it so"

said it before, say it again. not wanting to rain on the parade but as beneficial as it could be, I do not see enough scenarios in place for any service to make a case for a major shift in acquisition and where something else will get sacrificed to achieve it (money is not there for additional capabiliy - and this is more than just 12 x jumpers, there's a whole lot of other stuff thats in the through life costs, training, force protection etc.....

dixie is being whistled somewhere.....

So that said, we can expect an announcement just before the next election to the sounds of popping valves, coronaries, and strokes at dept, defence, DMO, and defence chiefs then ?

 

[gf0012-aust]

So that said, we can expect an announcement just before the next election to the sounds of popping valves, coronaries, and strokes at dept, defence, DMO, and defence chiefs then ?

you never make bets about decisions made by the govt of the day

 

[TheArchitect]

If we were to acquire a 3rd LHD with a longer and wider flight deck, I imagine it would cost somewhere in the region of B$1.2 - 1.5.. Then we have to buy planes to put on it. If we went with the F35B, and we wanted 24, I dont think we would have much change from B$3 just for the F35B's.

Building a 3rd LHD for the RAN has been discussed many times previously in this thread, and although it offers the benefit of increased availability of LHD’s during maintenance periods and major refits, it does so at a significant additional cost. A 3rd LHD would also provide flexibility for utilising at least one of the LHD’s for other secondary capabilities like operating the F35B, without compromising or reducing overall amphibious operations capabilities.

I don’t believe the RAN is large enough to support a carrier or specialist F35B ship as this would distract too greatly from other capabilities. Even a third large Canberra class LHD or other simular large ship would also require significant additional crewing requirements, which would stretch RAN resources.

One option would be to build 2 smaller LHD’s based on the Navantia Athlas class LHD 13000 design. Build one of the LHD’s for the RAN and one for the RNZN. The option of a small LHD for the RNZN has been previously mentioned by (ngatimozart) in the RNZN thread, as an option for a Canterbury replacement.

Although no Athlas class LHD 13000 Class ships have currently been built, the Spanish navy currently operates 2 Athlas LPD 13000 Galicia class ships (Galicia and Castilla) which are very similar in design. The Athlas class LHD 26000 is a design evolution of these ships.

The Athlas class LHD 13000 Class ships offer significant capability in a smaller cheaper to operate ship. It offers a 13,000 ton ship supporting 4 x LCM-1E (885m2 Dock), 500–600 Deployment Personal, 12 Bed Hospital, 4 Helicopter landing spots and base Crew of 113. The overall design, systems and layout are very similar to the larger Athlas class LHD 26000 which the Canberra class is based on.

Not sure what the cost to build would be, but I do know that they built using approximately half the number of build modules as the Canberra Class LHD.

 

[alexsa]

A Sea Harrier being able to take off from an anchored Invincible in unspecified conditions isn't exactly of great importance. At what weight? How many weapons, what fuel load? Any wind?

US LHDs are a fair bit bigger. 50% more tonnage, over 20 metres longer, & the flight deck is pretty much full length, which makes up for the lack of ski jump. And how many Harriers do they operate?

The claim which seemed to be being made was that being bigger than another ship, by itself, makes the Canberra class a better carrier. Not so!

Err, no. The claim was they were more flexible and it related to the swing between amphib and other roles where the example cited was the Falklands war and how Australia would manage. The suggestion was we could not. My response was:

a. We have more capability than was considered in the point made; and
b. I doubted we would be in the same scenario and if we are involved in an amphib operation it is likely to be closer to home.

I understand what you are saying but please take my comments in context. Sorry if this has caused offence BUT I was not claiming the LHD are better carriers and I am a little put out that it has been spun that way.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The LHD issues as a carrier aren't really related to its length, its flight deck, its speed. As it can launch and recover F-35B exactly how it is now (although a resurfacing is most likely in order). USMC ships arent much faster than a Canberra class (what 3 kt difference?) and in their new configurations will most likely launch and retrieve at a slower more economical speed.

Its that it can't do it while doing another significant role. Given our fairly limited amphibious capability to form and deploy and sustain ARG (most likely never able to form even in training, given the current assets, even with allied nations), or even a ARE (sustain) at certain times, means the F-35B is pointless. They will be stuck on land bases their entire lives. With only two LHD's, I doubt either will be deployed more than 2000 miles from Australian EEZ, and most likely not on anything other than training (a long deployment would start to stuff up training and maintenance scheduling).

While a dedicated carrier would seem to be the ideal solution, there is no money for such an acquisition. Plus it doesn't solve our amphibious problem. Plus it would also suffer from limited availability (as all 1 carrier navies have).

I see the cost of a 3rd LHD as a bargain. What a 3rd LHD will really do is cost us a lot more to effectively use it. Unless we want it to be empty the whole time, we need more helos (NH-90 + chinooks), we need more equipment for the army to form an ARG, we might even need to restructure the army so to be able to sustain an ARG long term. Some time after all of these expenses is it really appropriate to start thinking about F-35B's and how they fit into it.

But the Navy doesn't really want a 3rd LHD because they would prefer more fighting ships, or focus on smaller amphibious operations or subs rather than a another Bus to drive around the army. The Army doesn't see how a 3rd LHD would help justify all their new equipment etc, and would most likely oppose it as IMO it doesn't want to be a heavily amphibious force. The RAAF won't be interested as F-35's on ships sounds like secret RAN business, and would want to be so heavily based on ship and away from the 100 F-35A plan.

So apart from a 3rd LHD being oppose by think tanks, gov, treasury, RAN, RAAF, Army and maybe local industry its an absolute winner.

With no additional ship, there is no way the B's will be flying off anything Australian except imagination. With no additional lift you might as well pack away any plans of an ARG or ESG, and with that your back to Kanimbla levels of amphibious capability for all 3 forces. In other words insufficient amphibious capability to lead or operate without a US ESG. We might as well lease ferry and learn nothing from Timor. Our security will be in decline in proportional relationship to the US in asia and US budgets.

So we have these very capable LHD's, but because of lack of commitment and lack of willingness to fully embrace change and restructure to take advantage of it (across all 3 forces) we will be back at the mid 90's.

 

[swerve]

Err, no. The claim was they were more flexible and it related to the swing between amphib and other roles where the example cited was the Falklands war and how Australia would manage. ....

Perhaps there's been some misinterpretation here, but when I saw this -

the task forces had 2x Fearless Class LPD plus a number of LSL from the RFA they weren't expecting HMS Hermes and Invincable to do Amphious Assult whilst concurrently doing strike and air defence over the task force.

replied to with this -

In your asumptions; how does the fact that the LHD's are bigger and more versitile than the Invicible or Hermes which carried a limited nuimber of SHAR in the opening period of the Falklands conflict fit.

I didn't see how it could be interpreted in any other way than claiming that the size of the LHDs gives them an advantage over Hermes & Invincible in the carrier role. I didn't see why else it would be said. Perhaps it was just poorly expressed, & didn't mean what it seems to mean - but if it wasn't meant that way, then what was that about the limited number of Harriers carried by the RN carriers?

 

[alexsa]

Perhaps there's been some misinterpretation here, but when I saw this -

replied to with this -

I didn't see how it could be interpreted in any other way than claiming that the size of the LHDs gives them an advantage over Hermes & Invincible in the carrier role. I didn't see why else it would be said. Perhaps it was just poorly expressed, & didn't mean what it seems to mean - but if it wasn't meant that way, then what was that about the limited number of Harriers carried by the RN carriers?

The claim being responded to was that using one LHD for fixed wing would leave us short of amphib capacity based on the Falklands example based on the two carriers, Fearless and Intrepid and the Round table class.

My response was that having one LHD dedicated to fixed wing air is not likely to do so noting Choules is often ignored in the ongoing discussion and the capacity of the two LHD. I also made the point that I doubt we would be in such a scenario.

I did not suggest they were better carriers

In so far as the limited number of Harriers in the early stage of the conflict, this is true and reflect the fact that only limited numbers were deployed on the carriers when the headed south (i.e 801 on Invincible). Yes these were later reinforced by additional Harriers.

It is all moot given we are unlikely to have F35 but the endless suggestion that the RAN cannot possibly operate F35 on the LHD should we chose to do so due to lack of resources is mind boggling.

IN the 80's we had Tobruk and 6 LCH's. In the 90's into 00's we had Bill and Ben, a broken Tobruk and 4 to 6 LCH.

Now we have two LHD coming on line and Choules (sadly the LCH are going) and the common refrain is we are too limited.

But if you want to take it that I think an LHD is better that Hermes or Invincible ......... go for it.

 

[geomil]

The LHD issues as a carrier aren't really related to its length, its flight deck, its speed. As it can launch and recover F-35B exactly how it is now (although a resurfacing is most likely in order). USMC ships arent much faster than a Canberra class (what 3 kt difference?) and in their new configurations will most likely launch and retrieve at a slower more economical speed.

Its that it can't do it while doing another significant role. Given our fairly limited amphibious capability to form and deploy and sustain ARG (most likely never able to form even in training, given the current assets, even with allied nations), or even a ARE (sustain) at certain times, means the F-35B is pointless. They will be stuck on land bases their entire lives. With only two LHD's, I doubt either will be deployed more than 2000 miles from Australian EEZ, and most likely not on anything other than training (a long deployment would start to stuff up training and maintenance scheduling).

While a dedicated carrier would seem to be the ideal solution, there is no money for such an acquisition. Plus it doesn't solve our amphibious problem. Plus it would also suffer from limited availability (as all 1 carrier navies have).

I see the cost of a 3rd LHD as a bargain. What a 3rd LHD will really do is cost us a lot more to effectively use it. Unless we want it to be empty the whole time, we need more helos (NH-90 + chinooks), we need more equipment for the army to form an ARG, we might even need to restructure the army so to be able to sustain an ARG long term. Some time after all of these expenses is it really appropriate to start thinking about F-35B's and how they fit into it.

But the Navy doesn't really want a 3rd LHD because they would prefer more fighting ships, or focus on smaller amphibious operations or subs rather than a another Bus to drive around the army. The Army doesn't see how a 3rd LHD would help justify all their new equipment etc, and would most likely oppose it as IMO it doesn't want to be a heavily amphibious force. The RAAF won't be interested as F-35's on ships sounds like secret RAN business, and would want to be so heavily based on ship and away from the 100 F-35A plan.

So apart from a 3rd LHD being oppose by think tanks, gov, treasury, RAN, RAAF, Army and maybe local industry its an absolute winner.

With no additional ship, there is no way the B's will be flying off anything Australian except imagination. With no additional lift you might as well pack away any plans of an ARG or ESG, and with that your back to Kanimbla levels of amphibious capability for all 3 forces. In other words insufficient amphibious capability to lead or operate without a US ESG. We might as well lease ferry and learn nothing from Timor. Our security will be in decline in proportional relationship to the US in asia and US budgets.

So we have these very capable LHD's, but because of lack of commitment and lack of willingness to fully embrace change and restructure to take advantage of it (across all 3 forces) we will be back at the mid 90's.

Australia should go for the F35b passing from a substitute for the old Kanimbla to an Lhd or an aircraft carrier with munition lift for 4 or 5 mts missiles for the F35b. The F35b range and the missiles range, Aim 120 Amraam, Storm Shadow, Agm158…makes the change geopolitical, from a troop and gear ferry or asw carrier, to a far away threat like a F35b carrier, so far from coast it is difficult target.
Or being able to carry 1 F35b 6 Naval Strike Missiles it makes easy to throw many at the same time. So it is strategic both agains land and against sea.

In carrier role the Canberras have the heavy cargo deck, to put 45 containers, apart from the dock, with more food or uavs or missiles or spares or unmanned sea or undersea vehicles or sensors, like the English did in the Falklands. The ship can replenish food or fuel from replenishers but big missiles is other story.
Equally in carrier role, with helos and F35b, working intensely 24 hours a day 7 days a week you need more crew than normal, and the Canberras have plenty of bedrooms, living rooms, etcs, not just for the aircraft carrier but even extra crew for other subs, uavs, etc.

“The MQ-8B (Fire Scout) complements the manned aviation detachments onboard Air Capable ships and is deployed along with either an SH-60B HSL/HSM detachment or a MH-60S HSC detachment. With the planned addition of RADAR, AIS, and weapons, the MQ-8B will provide many of the capabilities currently provided by the SH-60B. It will give the ship and embarked air detachment greater flexibility in meeting mission demands, and will free manned aircraft for those missions.”

 

[Trackmaster]

This is the first I have seen on the Bundaberg fire for some time. I was aware a couple of weeks ago there was some boardroom skirmishing underway.

I look forward to seeing any detail on the investigation into the fire, particularly on the training of welders and the procedures on the day.

Sad that the company has folded.

HMAS Bundaberg fire: 160 jobs lost

 

[justsomeaussie]

Assuntos Militares: NAVANTIA firma contrato para desenvolver as novas fragatas australianas do programa Sea 5000
Navantia firm contract to develop the new Australian frigates of the Sea 5000 program

Navantia signed a contract with the Australian DMO to achieve the RRDS (Risk Reduction Study Design), his program for the future frigate called SEA 5000 program.

The contract was signed at the headquarters of BMD in Canberra by Francis Baron, director of Navantia in Australia and Paddy Fitzpatrick, director of Naval Programs BMD. The management and coordination of activities under this contract will be conducted from the operations center of Navantia in Adelaide, opened a few weeks ago.

The contract, which will take about nine months to analyze the impact of the installation of a radar Australian CEAFAR and a system of command and control of Saab in the future ship-based frigate F-105 project and meet a number of specific requirements Australians.

This is the first step in the acquisition of future frigates for the Royal Australian Navy, which is planned to build eight units program. These studies are intended to demonstrate the feasibility to meet all operational requirements of the Australian Navy and make an assessment of the impact on the project in order to introduce new requirements to the ship. Once finalized studies, will begin a new phase to develop a broader and proper documentation for the procurement contract, which may reach a year.

The Australian Government is committed to building ships in Australian shipyards in Adelaide, where they are being built like the AWD frigates, designed by Navantia from the frigate F-100.

Importantly, the appearance of commonality of systems and equipment with the other ships of the Australian Navy, is undoubtedly a great competitive argument for Navantia, reinforcing their options in other programs that Navantia is opting.

This is a fundamental program Navantia for the complexity and volume provides a sign of confidence in the Australian government and its ability to Navantia design. Means keeping an important activity for more than 15 years in Australia, as well as having the opportunity to generate a variant of the F-100 frigate, which can actually be very attractive in the international market.

 

[ASSAIL]

This is the first I have seen on the Bundaberg fire for some time. I was aware a couple of weeks ago there was some boardroom skirmishing underway.

I look forward to seeing any detail on the investigation into the fire, particularly on the training of welders and the procedures on the day.

Sad that the company has folded.

HMAS Bundaberg fire: 160 jobs lost

I assume ABA was simply undertaking the work at Brisbane Ship Lifters? or had they taken over the yard? I rebuilt my 270 pax cat there in 2010.
If the company was shakey to start with it doesn't say a lot about contract procurement. I assume the RAN and the yard had shipbuilders insurance, even a pissant little company like mine assures that

 

[Joe Black]

Any thoughts about acquiring something like USS Peleliu when she is decommissioned next year? She is rather young, being built in 1980. I think if RAN acquire her, give her a refit with some modern equipment, removed unecessary capabilities and automate some functions to reduce the crewing requirement by about half, she might be a ready-made STOVL aircraft carrier/assault ship combo for RAN?

Just interested hear some thoughts and debates.

 

[justsomeaussie]

Any thoughts about acquiring something like USS Peleliu when she is decommissioned next year? She is rather young, being built in 1980. I think if RAN acquire her, give her a refit with some modern equipment, removed unecessary capabilities and automate some functions to reduce the crewing requirement by about half, she might be a ready-made STOVL aircraft carrier/assault ship combo for RAN?

Just interested hear some thoughts and debates.

What exact role would it do that the LHDs dont fit?